If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Remember that standard is what is actually used. Current standard is X.Org and the next one could easily be Mir.

No, a "standard" is something created or adopted by a recognized standards-settings body that is intended to allow interoperability between different projects.

Mir is neither of these, it was created by one group, is intended to primarily serve the needs of that group, and is not accepted by any recognized standards-setting organization. Wayland, on the other hand, is a standard, specifically a standard accepted by freedesktop.org (the recognized standards-setting body for FLOSS software), and was created with the goal of being cross-distribution.

What you are thinking of is "de facto standard", which is not the same thing.

Originally Posted by ворот93

Big oops for Ubuntu haters.

As others have pointed out, this was never one of the criticisms of MIR, so I don't see how it really affects the discussion in any meaningful way.

Wayland, on the other hand, is a standard, specifically a standard accepted by freedesktop.org (the recognized standards-setting body for FLOSS software), and was created with the goal of being cross-distribution

True for the second part but for the first part since when freedesktop.org is a standard setting body for FLOSS software?

A standard setting body is something like the IETF, W3C or the ISO, I don't think that freedesktop.org is like this..

No, a "standard" is something created or adopted by a recognized standards-settings body that is intended to allow interoperability between different projects.

Mir is neither of these, it was created by one group, is intended to primarily serve the needs of that group, and is not accepted by any recognized standards-setting organization.

And the "standards" body needs to be accepted by everyone in the first place. Otherwise I can claim to be a Linux king who sets THE standards

Originally Posted by TheBlackCat

Wayland, on the other hand, is a standard, specifically a standard accepted by freedesktop.org (the recognized standards-setting body for FLOSS software), and was created with the goal of being cross-distribution.

True for the second part but for the first part since when freedesktop.org is a standard setting body for FLOSS software?

A standard setting body is something like the IETF, W3C or the ISO, I don't think that freedesktop.org is like this..

Sorry, I should say "FLOSS desktop environments". And yes, the whole point of freedesktop.org is that it is recognized by all FLOSS desktop environments as the body responsible for settings the standards for those desktop environements. In fact that is its one and only purpose in existing.

In this regard it is more like the W3C rather than the ISO, in that it establishes standards that apply to a certain class of software, rather than to anything and everything.

As usually nobody (me included) really knows what that really means, unless we get a Wayland dev to talk about thread safety at large, about the pros and cons of having different parts (or all) of the wayland stack thread safe.
Notice, back in Oct. 2012 there were thread-safety patches merged into Wayland before 1.0.
Then there's recent thread related additions like this one from March 2013.

In short, nobody (not the Wayland nor the Mir devs) knows for sure all the pros and cons of the whole thread-safety shebang: what parts must be thread safe, which should not, and which ones should provide thread-safety optionally - until we have a fully working desktop on either Wayland or Mir with latest technologies (KDE/QML, Gnome/clutter etc) fully ported to see how they work and which approach is the best. Note to non-programmers: being thread safe isn't always necessary or a good idea, though often it is.

Regardless, both of them will be a lot better and simpler than X11. Also, Mir contributed to Wayland indirectly by becoming a competitor and hence accelerating the development of Wayland, but Canonical could have accelerated it even faster by assigning those 8 devs to work on Wayland (from 2010 as promised!) rather than diluting the effort on a (very) similar solution.

It is recognized by everybody. Ever heard of dbus? HAL? Mesa? These are all freedesktop.org standards.

So what? Unity, EVE Online and Midnight Commander are my standards. Does it mean that you are obliged to follow them?

"De facto standard" IS the standard. It is one only when everyone agrees to follow it; who cares what is written on paper if it does not coincide with reality? I can't remember Debian abandoning dpkg because of LSB-compliance issues.

Or not especially since Mir will be server-oriented because of energy consumption issues.

And why should Canonical contribute to "Wayland effort" and not Ubuntu?

Server-oriented means nothing in your context of energy consumption. Do you have _any_ numbers to back it up? Canonical has a big PR mouthpiece that keeps talking about efficiency while writing a lot of stuff in Python.